Alan Moore's Secret History

[@CountOrlok22]

Dez Skinn is not someone I would interview as a witness. Not a forthcoming person. Most of the legal/ethical issues regarding "Miracle Man" fall in his lap and I know a number of writers on comics history who have stated that he plagiarised their work or that he contracted them to contribute writing for him and then received no credit, after which he referred to them as ghost writers, despite that not being in any contract.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Yup, I wouldn't consider Skinn a wholly reliable witness, but he was never the one who said Moore was responsible, just that the event happened. It was quite famous in UK Con circles at the time and based on Talbot's telling I don't think Moore or any of the 'gang' he hired to attack Skinn were shy about saying who 'sponsored' it.

[@piotrd7355]

After watching this video, I come to the conclusion that after all of Moore's attacks toward Morrison, Grant even exhibits unearthly patience because not once did he pull out the behind-the-scenes dirt that doesn't just involve them personally to hit Alan.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Grant didn't know any of this stuff or didn't care.

[@JayJayJackson]

I worked at Marvel starting in 1984 and met Alan when he visited. I worked on the Doctor Who comics, among others. I know a number of the people mentioned here including Jim Shooter, Len Wein, and Dez Skinn. I worked with Archie Goodwin and Bill Sienkiewicz. This narrative is in line with what I’m aware of. People who were supportive of Alan Moore’s career have been very hurt by the things he claims.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Jay Jay, thank you so much. I'm discovering outside of the co-creators who helped me that while a lot of people may know or believe what I've said very few of them want to talk about; certainly not publicly. Your insight is greatly appreciate as I felt particularly badly for Len Wein and Archie Goodwin as they were used and discarded as mere props when they couldn't respond themselves. I would have liked to speak with Sienkiewicz to find out if he was aware that Moore sold 'Big Numbers' as a TV series and worked extensively with the writer of that. I'd love to see Bill finish the series himself with another writer based on Moore's detailed plots for the series (with Moore's blessing of course!). Thanks again Jayjay.

[@paulbrown6464]

@@comicssecrethistory3538I’m not sure if the famous sheet still exists that plots out the entire series of Big Numbers

[@jugglenautics]

I have interviewed a lot of the people mentioned in this video, and I can confirm that they are all of retirement age and materially suffer by not being able to reprint the comics they worked so hard on. Thanks for making this video, it's tough to see someone who's work you love so much be so callous towards his co-creators. The truth deserves to be as well known as the myth, but the myth will likely live longer.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Dan, you should interview Mikey on your channel

[@JayJayJackson]

In my experience, people much prefer myth to reality. And #birdsarentreal

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@JayJayJackson That's no more evident than right here. :)

[@choosecarefully408]

@@JayJayJackson Heh. For what is likely a throw-away comment, you nailed the Underlying Problem with most of society's issues. This will be long. Generally, humans want to believe there is *some* Great Force For Good (GFFG) looking out for them. However for the majority of people, having this As A Mere Concept isn't nearly enough, so they seek surrogate representations of the GFFG. Politicians are not 'Government.' But I've yet to meet a single other human who can completely separate the two things mentally or emotionally. They're too perfect of an easily-identified Physical Representation Of the GFFG. Without politicians, judges & lawyers to point at we would have impersonal buildings only. As a result, to maintain our belief in the GFFG, we have to treat _politicians_ as if they *are* that force. & there's no point continuing unless anyone expresses any interest to. Here's where it ties into Moore though & the industry as a whole. Anarchy is what? An ism. But one that originates from a Personal Set of Values people wish to have imposed on All Society. Every kid's wish. You know what it lacks? Any vision of how to achieve that imposition. It's a wish. It expresses a goal with no mention ever of the plan to achieve it. It's like thinking that when we Vote Liberal, liberal cogs, levers & pulleys then fuel Liberal assembly lines that produce Liberal policies that just spew out at regular intervals regulating All Life so we humans don't have to think. So while it _is_ a childish wish... It's actually No Different From thinking voting for a party or candidate. Or more childish than this. _You_ can't take these amounts allaregreen.us/ of $ from an oil company then _not do_ as they tell you & neither can Mitch McConnell. _ONLY_ the belief that the GFFG is immune to such corruption *&* the belief that politicians _ARE_ that GFFG Itself convinces us otherwise. & yeah, people very much prefer that narrative to the reality.

[@choosecarefully408]

@@JayJayJackson My initial reply here was deleted, but while this may be a throwaway comment on your part, the points it illustrates go beyond what's being discussed here. Subconsciously (SC) most people generally seek to latch onto role models. When we find one, we shift all the loyalty we had for our First SC Role Model onto them. After that, anyone attacking that role model feels to them like someone attacking Daddy. All role models (for the purpose of understanding this) become "Daddy." Since this isn't happening in the rational, reasoning part of our brains, a lot of people try but fail to rationalize their reasons for what they think. If we know industrial polluting, oil pipelines & GMOs are bad, we can't stop them because that would require holding some of our highest-ranked SC role models, politicians accountable. If you see someone as Daddy, then you feel like a child in relationship to them. Children contemplating holding their surrogate-Daddies accountable feel like they have to go pee. So this applies to a lot in life. & it applies tp what you said. People prefer narratives other than the one I just spun.

[@kirbles2035]

Was worried I wouldn't want to read Alan Moore after watching this, but I actually want to read him more now because by buying his comics (particularly the DC stuff) I'd be supporting his co creators.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Great point, even better you can now enjoy his Marvel stuff guilt free; they're the only ones to properly pay all his co-creator's!

[@paulbrown6464]

Film and TV adaptations do not diminish their source material. The source material is not changed, it will always exist as the creators created them. Don’t like adaptations, then don’t watch. Simple as

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Agreed 100% Particularly true for comics over other source media as they already have such a strong visual imprint.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

One could only imagine what would befall Watchmen had the rights reverted to Moore -- it would be out of print for thirty years, and no one would be able to read and enjoy it (let alone Dave Gibbons earning money for it). Even if one takes a purist position and disregards the sequels and spinoffs as non-canononical, I don't see how any of the post-Moore Watchmen activity makes it impossible to enjoy the original. There are those who regard Ditko's Spider-Man as the only valid version; the rest can be ignored. Conversely, one can take the view that subsequent Spidey interpretations, no matter how perverse, diluted, misguided, or unauthorized by the creator, still point back to Ditko's work, which is irreducibly weird and wonky. The same holds true for Moore. Blasting these spinoffs has never made any sense to me; why he can' t simply sit back and enjoy the fact that his ideas have longevity and have inspired follow-ons is beyond me.

[@Dacre1000]

It is called having a right. That means that you are entitled to do some things and Donnie Simpson not getting why one does them or disagreeing with them means Jack and shit and Jack left town. As for partners... That is the thing about CO owning something. You both have a say about it. That is the... You know... The thing... The right. Exercising your rights might not be the most solidary, but it is, by definition, not wrong. Surely you understand that if an author legally and by his own rights decides to withdraw their work from the public such public and Donnie Simpson can choose between crying a river or living with it, right? You can surely understand something that simple. I mean... I hear you are a nurse now. Or was it a professor?

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@Dacre1000 It's a definition of "right" in purely negative terms, of suicide and self-destruction. Alan Moore destroying himself, his legacy, and his own work, and his toxic Amen Corner cheering him on -- for some reason this strikes me as nihilistic, rather than creative. Like I've said before, I'm glad my intersection with this death cult was no more than 13 pages.

[@Dacre1000]

@@donaldsimpson2237 Donnie, Donnie, Donnie... Just go to sleep. You are not up to this. You are starting to sound like a crackpot.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

It's interesting to me that Alan's Amen Corner can do no better than to assert that Alan has a "right," never that the actions that Alan has taken ever accomplish anything or achieve positive goals or make sense. As a younger man, he created a body of work; as an older man, he has the "right" to completely efface it. When it is described as madness, or damaging to his fans or collaborators, or just plain said, well, he has a "right." As if the goal of art were to become rich and famous enough to go crazy and howl at the moon. Leave the poor man alone; he's exercising his rights. Alan one wrote a story synopsis that was pitched to me as artist (after someone else turned it down) in 1987 called "Convention Tension," a black comedy about a comic book convention. One of the characters, "Byron Starkwinter," is a young guy modeled after Steve Gerber, who becomes excessively famous when his Howard the Duck-like character, Mookie the Worm, becomes a cultural phenomenon. Byron, needless to say, in Alan's parable, becomes increasingly unhinged, erratic, and self-destructive, and his fans cheer him on. I've always consider Byron to be Alan's self-fulfilling prophecy. But entering the snakepit comics industry, become excessively famous, accruing toxic fans, and living out a self-fulfilling prophecy ... well, that's his right.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@Dacre1000 I think people deserve to know that having worked with Alan Moore has been both a blessing and a curse. There a lot of people, like you, I presume, who've read stacks of Alan's comics, but very few of us who've actually worked with Alan. You have the choice to consider our testimony or go back to reading your stack of comics. There is also a distinction between having a right and being in the wight or wrong. Exercising one's rights in purely negative, destructive ways is not something to celebrated; it is usually regarded as lamentable, wrong-headed, childish. Alan leaving 1963 unfinished and of no use to anyone, including the fans and dealers who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the first six issues and were cheated out of a promised annual, cannot be described as his "right." He broke a moral and very real contract with his fans and collaborators, and he's never made good on the deal. There was no evil corporation to blame, no Hollywood or DC Comics, just Alan. In America, the independent comics movement and creator's rights was about asserting rights and freedoms to create and produce unhindered from the strictures imposed by the big companies, Marvel and DC. 1963 should have been a shining example of what creators, working in collaboration, free of the interference of "corporate suits," could do and accomplish on their own, through Image Comics. I suppose it was a bit unrealistic to expect a Brit with no real desire to create anything original, who had made his name writing other people's characters, and only stumbled upon a semi-original concept or two by accident, as it were, to understand "rights" in this way. For Alan, he had a right to maximize his paycheck anyway he saw fit; he had the right to walk away from projects when he grew tired of them; he had the right to lash out and use his clout to hobble other people's careers, while the checks from Hollywood and the evil corporations continued to flow in, and he continues to this day to cash them while decrying the means of his wealth. And it's only fitting that his British fans in particular -- who seem to prefer their authors, such as J.K. Rowling, to be raving, lunatic King Lears out in a storm on the heath with nothing but their own foolishness -- to worship this shitshow as the right and proper behavior of a genius taking down "the system." And if anyone intimates, "I think Lear's a little off his nut today," well, gouge his eyes out! From my point of view, The Guardian's unprincipled proffering of Alan Moore as a champion of "creator's rights" is most unfortunate; luckily The Guardian isn't as widely read in America. By the way, under U.S. copyright law, I have the right to reprint "In Pictopia" with his name. He requested his name be removed for insane reasons, and I granted his request with the misplaced hope of talking him out of it. When that proved impossible, I would have still been within my right to use his name; but unlike Alan, I don't care to break my promise if I"m not absolutely forced to do so. That's the difference between having a right in the abstract and trying to do the right thing.his British fans

[@Ale_LSH]

This is very well made and researched. I would recommend making a written version of this and posting it in some site or blog, as to make it more accesible to others. A listing of sources and testimonies would be great too as it would allow others to make their own video essays which would help to spread the word even more. Still, cheers for all the hard work on this.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Thanks so much Ale. Aside from the research; the presentation was very much a last resort (no other sites would touch it) and I had to learn everything from scratch to present it. The Moore piece refers to the sources, while with other sites I was able to link to them or show them as I figured out how to do that. Anything anyone wants genuine sources for I'll provide in the replies here. The Moore piece is probably the one that relies least on sources as it was so simple to show that what he or his supporters were saying wasn't true; no need for citation when he gives 3 different reasons for screwing over someone!

[@allowableman2]

@@comicssecrethistory3538 have you tried Substack?

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Whatever issues Alan Moore has with comics, Hollywood, and his fellow creators, they almost certainly predate his career and run much deeper than his involvement with fame. His complaints suspiciously echo tropes originating in the 1970s with the genuine plight of Siegel and Shuster and Steve Gerber in comics, as well as the more dubious rebel posturing of Harlan Ellison and others in Hollywood. His unoriginal, practically plagiaristic rehashing of these old tropes is particularly odd since he entered the comics business and submitted to the work-for-hire status quo fully aware of this shabby history and by all accounts has enjoyed far better remuneration, credit, creative control, and critical honor than almost any of his peers and certainly any previous generations of creators. Moore's conception of a creator seems to be inseparable from that of a rebel at war with capitalism, fighting his exploitation by the system-a la Roger Waters, Miles Davis, Orson Welles, et al. Moore seems to think he’s not living up to the “genius” accolade fans and critics have bestowed upon him-curious considering his low opinion of the acuity of comics fans and critics in almost every other respect. This is a thoroughly adolescent conception. My recollection of the protests of the 1980s-over comics labeling, creators’ rights, and even going on strike against the big mainstream publishers-seemed to originate with creators like Dave Sim, Frank Miller, and Scott McCloud. For these creators, such issues seemed genuine matters of conviction; “troublemaking” seemed to come naturally to them and organic to their personas. Alan Moore’s participation in these protests always struck me as rather “me too”-motivated by an anxiety that he was somehow being left out of the conversation. I always wondered what such a well-rewarded, highly regarded, work-for-hire creator really had to complain about. These fights never seemed, to my mind, to be exactly his. I should add that no one ever held it against Alan Moore that he was writing Swamp Thing, Joker, Superman, Mr. Monster, or any of the myriad characters he didn’t create, or the archetypes that were clearly derivative; we were too busy enjoying the fact that he was having such an inventive good time riffing on Philip José Farmer and Joseph Campbell, and reinvigorating the most unlikely, tired old trademarks. His was a mind that saw creative possibilities where everyone else saw only exhaustion and a well long run dry. In any case, he had nothing to prove to those of us who trying in vain to be “original.” What is most ironic about Alan Moore is that his career is most dysfunctional precisely where no mainstream publisher, corporation, or Hollywood producer is involved-in work he completely controls. 1963 is completely creator-owned; it remains unfinished and uncollected simply because Alan has lost interest and refuses to cooperate with any number of creators willing to finish it. Needless to say, Alan has no regard whatsoever for the fans and dealers who supported the six 1963 issues, from whom he earned tens of thousands of dollars, and who would still welcome the long-promised Annual. Just for comparison, while 1963 remains unfinished and uncollected, countless lesser works from that era (the 1990s) and since have been collected as graphic novels; works that have lain unfinished for decades have since been finished; even renowned “company man” John Byrne, skirting copyright and trademark law, has gone back to his X-Men storyline in ElseWhen-simply because he has the will to do so. Needless to say, most Marvel movies have mined storylines that are even older than 1963-nothing in comics is ever past tense. To this day, Moore has the clout to see 1963 through to completion; even the co-creators he’s maligned, I have no doubt, would be willing to let bygones be bygones for the sake of the work and the fans. Why Alan prefers to rail against comics, Hollywood, and his fellow collaborators and co-owners of IP that fans would still support, every chance The Guardian offers him a platform to do so, is inexplicable to me. Why he hasn’t enjoyed a career at least as healthy and productive as Neil Gaiman’s, for example, unfortunately, will never be explained in a KZbin video.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

His Issues are all an excuse; nobler than the truth of pathetic petty personal grudges, which have been evident since his treatment of Alan Davis in 1984 and Dez Skinn to an extent. That's why you can't find anything to support his 'issues' except for facts that contradict them. On a positive note at least his behaviour isn't the result of advancing years etc. he's as compus mentus as he was 40 years ago! Oooh I wish you hadn't written 'a career as healthy as Neil Gaiman's' before my next video ;)

[@Jimmy020889]

This was a real eye-opener and I think very powerful, I would consider perhaps redoing the video with better quality images and maybe leaving out your own opinions or bias to let Moore's actions speak for themselves.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

It's interesting to me that Alan's Amen Corner can do no better than to assert that Alan has a "right," never that the actions that Alan has taken ever accomplish anything or achieve positive goals or make sense. As a younger man, he created a body of work; as an older man, he has the "right" to completely efface it (so the argument goes). When this is described as madness, or damaging to his fans or collaborators, or just plain sad or inexplicable, well, he has a "right." As if the goal of art were to become rich and famous enough to go crazy and howl at the moon. "Leave the poor man alone; he's 'exercising his rights.'" Alan once wrote a story synopsis that was pitched to me as artist (after someone else turned it down) in 1987 called "Convention Tension," a black comedy about a comic book convention. One of the characters, "Byron Starkwinter," is a young guy modeled after Steve Gerber, who becomes excessively famous when his Howard the Duck-like character, Mookie the Worm, becomes a cultural phenomenon. Byron, needless to say, in Alan's parable, becomes increasingly unhinged, erratic, and self-destructive, and his fans cheer him on. I've always considered Byron to be Alan's self-fulfilling prophecy. But entering the snakepit comics industry, become excessively famous, accruing toxic fans, and living out a self-fulfilling prophecy ... well, that's his right.

[@gelidsoul]

His relationship to fame has always been confusing. In 'The Mindscape of Alan Moore' he says he chose to remain in "the relative obscurity of Northampton" because he never anticipated becoming famous and he viewed fame as a dangerous, unmapped, unnavigable sea. And yet he continues to show up for BBC and The Guardian interviews.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@gelidsoul That's his real war; it's not with comics or Hollywood or his collaborators. It's with fame itself.

[@captainhowdy2782]

This is so disappointing. Not surprising. Just disappointing.

[@kairamh]

wasn't the DC rating system (mentioned around 50:00) the "for mature readers" stamp (and limited distribution) on Vertigo (and I guess other) books?

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Nope, it was an actual age rating system ala cinema highlighting 'objectionable content' like record companies introduced under the same pressure. DC never brought it in.

[@ronanlennon1973]

Very interesting essay , some points from my own experiences as a comics reader , not in the industry at any level. I went to San Diego Comic con from 2001 to 2011 . In 2005 they had a panel on the “British invasion “ of the early 80’s . David Lloyd was asked about V for Vendetta and the process of creating it. He said the first two parts (the Warrior material) were heavily collaborative, phone calls etc but then when the DC deal was done he basically got the scripts for the last book in the post without much collaboration. He seemed disappointed in that. Another question was put to the panelists (all artists I think but I can’t remember) if they would work with Moore again, the answers were all great writer and yes … they had as much enthusiasm as people told they were going to be hanged in the morning. A couple of years later on the Sunday afternoon of the con l noticed a famous American writer at his table talking to someone so l queued up waiting to talk to him too. The person talking was a friend and I inadvertently ear wigged shop talk between the two. The writer had worked in DC editorial when Watchmen was being published monthly and said the creation was fraught and that there was “bad faith on both sides” . I think this was in reference to Len Wein who quit editing the book after disagreeing with the ending as written. Any interview with Wein has his take on this. One point which I don’t see raised much about Moore and his public profile is that he worked for Sounds for years. Sure it was as a cartoonist but he was working for one of the most influential music newspapers in the Uk , I can’t think of an equivalent in modern media , but he was in the cool media crowd just as he started his writing career. Watchmen probably would not be the commercial success it is without the backing of Warner books in the 80s , they seen the good fortune that being published at the same time as The dark knight returns created a new product line for them, which they exploited with V for Vendetta, Sandman etc trades. Being in print is so important to any books longevity we often take it for granted, look at marvel’s collections for the same 80s period, haphazard to say the least and none kept in print consistently despite the quality; born again, kraven’s last hunt , dark Phoenix. Anyway look forward to the next essay. You should have called the channel or playlist ‘ Devils advocate ‘

[@jnramage]

Wow. What a hatchet. Having said I totally see many of the co creators complaints. I never understood the fight with bissette and the refusal to reprint the 1963 material. He seems unreasonable and hard to deal with and always had. By the way…comics and pulps were if not created were certainly aided by the criminal element that controlled distribution.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Yes, we all knew mob money from the garment district in New York was laundered in comics. Apparently, Alan only discovered this well-known fact in the twenty-first century.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Particularly striking is the 1984 letter to Sutherland (16:40-18:00), from the same erratic typewriter as the "In Fictopia" (sic) script I was given back in 1986. Like the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer who professes ignorance of the complex, legalistic modern world, Alan's pose as a poor, simple, ignorant creator who got ripped off by shrewd corporations proves utterly disingenuous.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Dunno if you've seen this one Don kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYiZpoqrqJaWatk 1.43.50 - 1.44.13, it's Moore talking (as he did in other interviews) about how angry he got when he imagined DC was lying and punitively punishing his pals to get at him. This is at the same time as he was preventing 1963 being reprinted benefitting all who worked on it because y'know 'Steve Bissette said something' and before your own sales and promotion censorship, because some critic was allowed write something he didn't like at some stage decades ago :)

[@octagonseventynine1253]

Huge fan of Alan Moore’s work here, I’ve got pretty much all of his works. This was an enlightening video. It makes me feel a little bit naive. Interesting to see the perspective of people who feel he’s done them wrong. I must admit I bought his stories about the watchmen contract without question but now I doubt it.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Cheers. He's still a brilliant writer, the facts don't change that, nothing wrong with being a fan of someone's work without believing the they're somehow 'god-like' which he clearly isn't. If anything the truth will make appreciating his next work all that more interesting.

[@pootcargo]

Is there no list of sources?

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Nope; way too extensive. Tell me what you'd like sources for and I'll provide them here.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Mikey, you point out innumerable contradictions and inconsistencies in Moore's career, professional behavior, and public statements that his fans will do well to consider next time they want to weep for him -- but probably won't.

[@omekafalconburn9202]

If you’re honest maybe you should link to Alan Moors actual comments regarding the infantilisation of modern culture your strawman argument against him is a real shame his points are more than valid.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Well, I mention it, even though it's inane; Moore's politics are at best laughably naive and his points on this particular issue haven't been echoed by any one who is actually expert in politics. It's another case of Moore stating something just to attack it without any explanation or supporting evidence; like yourself and your "straw arguement" comment; unless you'd like to point out some in the episode???

[@omekafalconburn9202]

@@comicssecrethistory3538 “Inane” “laughably naive “ nice solid foundation for your retort , it seems to me that you are the one that needs to explain yourself properly by taking his full comments and showing how these magical words you use apply to them. I think that is a fair enough comment., obviously there is no way to objectively quantify those terms as this is a personal opinion -your personal opinion that is- but if you can come up with a decent argument I’d love to hear it.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

@@omekafalconburn9202 If you read my reply; I say "Moore's politics" not his comments. While clearly not the focus of the episode or even a focus; he's supposedly an anarchist who urged everyone to vote for Labour when he himself never voted on what he considered some of the most important issues in his lifetime. Shortly after urging his followers to embrace democracy he appeared on the Russian State controlled RT television to promote 'Jerusalem'. That's what I mean by inane and naive. He attacks and disowns the gangster crooked corporate comics industry while chasing cheques from them every quarter. I'd love to hear your examples of Straw Arguments still

[@omekafalconburn9202]

@@comicssecrethistory3538 Okay well let’s see if this was your straw man argument perhaps my choice of words is not exactly right im paraphrasing here but I heard you say that Alan Moore blamed comic books/Marvel movies for the “rise of Donald Trump” which he absolutely did not, hence that direct point I am arguing is a Straw-man, his actual argument was that there is a generalised infantilisation in Western culture one of the symptoms of such is the proliferation of super peopled movies ie in the year Trump was elected The top five grossing movies were about ubermench adults running around in their undies fighting one-dimensional baddies don’t you think he might have a point? Alan Moore has lived his entire life in one of the most impoverished cities in England that being Northhampton he lives in an old restored council flat just around the corner from where he was born, he turned down millions upon millions of pounds in royalties to have his name taken off of all movies Based upon his work he has never seen the movies nor earned a cent from them. He could be living in Malibu or Chelsea in fact anywhere in the world and yet he chooses to stay in a shit hole where he grew up, call me crazy but that to me does not sound like a man who is that worried about money. And as regards your RT comment what can I say I think I know where you’re coming from now suffice to say by appearing on RT Alan Moore joins some other despicable people like Noam Chomsky, Sir Desmond Tutu, Julian Assange, Chris Hedges, Tariq Ali etc KGB agents all of course, let’s burn some Tolstoy while where at it eh. For anyone else who may be reading this exchange do yourself a favour and go listen to Alan Moore‘s actual words before you make up your mind on him, and for God sake read “Jerusalem” it is incredible absolutely incredible and changed my life for the better.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Omeka, I got a notification with your latest reply, but for some reason it hasn't shown up here; I haven't blocked you or changed the settings so I don't know what happened. Here's your most recent post (in italics) and my replies after each space: Okay well let’s see if this was your straw man argument perhaps my choice of words is not exactly right im paraphrasing here but I heard you say that Alan Moore blamed comic books/Marvel movies for the “rise of Donald Trump” which he absolutely did not, hence that direct point I am arguing is a Straw-man, his actual argument was that there is a generalised infantilisation in Western culture one of the symptoms of such is the proliferation of super peopled movies ie in the year Trump was elected The top five grossing movies were about ubermench adults running around in their undies fighting one-dimensional baddies don’t you think he might have a point? Hmm, again not a focus of my episode. Just showing how inane Moore’s scattershot attack on the medium is; associating with KKK, Mafia and Trump. Does he have a point; of course not, it demonstrates a gross ignorance of the cultural, economical and political reasons behind Trump’s election and Britain voting for Brexit (which he also suggested was down to comics). Simple fact is most of the folks who voted for both these things were not MCU fans or their audience. Alan Moore has lived his entire life in one of the most impoverished cities in England that being Northhampton he lives in an old restored council flat just around the corner from where he was born, Moore was born into privileged idyllic middle class life; despite how he choses to reinvent it and present it. Both his parents were professionally employed and he enjoyed luxuries of television and holidays in the late fifties when they were a luxury for most. He then went to one of the most prestigious public schools in the country. he turned down millions upon millions of pounds in royalties to have his name taken off of all movies Based upon his work he has never seen the movies nor earned a cent from them. He actually turned down 4% of the option money for Watchmen and V for Vendetta post 2000 after making millions off From Hell and LOEG which he fully owned and sold the rights to be adapted. He still makes money off all the merchandise sales from those films according to David Lloyd, who I’m inclined to believe as he’s not a pathological liar like Moore and Dez Skinn who also gets ‘V for Vendetta’ royalties and never saw an increase in his merchandise royalty shares after Moore supposedly gave them up. This whole video is about the actual facts rather than what Moore says; which is often contrary to the facts; did you miss that? He could be living in Malibu or Chelsea in fact anywhere in the world and yet he chooses to stay in a shit hole where he grew up, call me crazy but that to me does not sound like a man who is that worried about money. He’s not worried about money; he’s fabulously wealthy and Northampton isn’t as bad as Moore makes it out to be. He is in fact so wealthy that he can use that to deprive his co-creators of much needed income who don’t share his wealth. And as regards your RT comment what can I say I think I know where you’re coming from now suffice to say by appearing on RT Alan Moore joins some other despicable people like Noam Chomsky, Sir Desmond Tutu, Julian Assange, Chris Hedges, Tariq Ali etc KGB agents all of course, let’s burn some Tolstoy while where at it eh. Are you for or against Straw Men arguments? For anyone else who may be reading this exchange do yourself a favour and go listen to Alan Moore‘s actual words before you make up your mind on him, Given much of it is obvious lies why? They could watch this episode and see EXACTLY what he says about Alan Davis, Bernie Jaye, David Lloyd, Dave Gibbons, Len Wein, Dez Skinn and all the others who supported him throughout his career and for God sake read “Jerusalem” it is incredible absolutely incredible and changed my life for the better. You know that you can enjoy the work without believing the sun shines out of the author’s arse?

[@Salgood]

Oof, Mikey came for him! You know if all true as presented that's pretty damning, it's a damn shame this wasn't posted with a text based citations index list. I certainly always took issue with his claim of not reading the Watchmen and V contracts closely, but you bring with this some interesting new to me points about that.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Cheers Sam. I have citations for everything but it's an insanely long document (it includes citations for thousands of words I cut and stuff I ended up not using). If there's anything in particular you'd like sources for let me know and I'll provide them.

[@Salgood]

@@comicssecrethistory3538 Right this second I don't have a specific ask, but I'd recommend posting a summery of the sources for information you did use and link to it in the description text here. You could post it on something like Medium. So anyone wanting to follow up has a way to check out the interviews and articles cited. I know about some of this stuff, but there's lots of wrinkles you brought up I'd love to look through in more depth when i have time.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@Salgood It would be nice to have an annotated bibliography (I teach college writing, so I preach this regularly to my students! :) ), but Mikey does a good job of citing interviews, et al, in the video verbally. I think any skeptics would be hard-pressed to find any erroneous attributions. Mikey's done his homework.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Mikey actually made this video to defend Watchmen spinoffs, prequels, and licensing -- an important argument diluted by bringing in the extraneous material about Alan Moore screwing over nearly every collaborator he has the clout to screw over. Maybe a re-edit that removes all this nonsense about creators' rights and IP ownership and instead concentrates the artistic validity of ancillary Watchmen tie-ins would strengthen his argument in favor of capitalism and corporate greed, which I know was his underlying point. Think about it, Mikey! :)

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

;)

[@liptontea8900]

Hello I know this upload is a bit dated at this point but wanted to say the work put into this video was amazing. I found this video because I was gonna perform a college speech on Alan Moore because I view his work in high regard but view his remarks on superhero films to be childish and confusing so I was doing research and found this treasure trove of information. Everything was so meticulously researched and you include articles and videos to watch regarding his constant inconsistencies through out the years. But I'm gonna end this rambling by saying I'm gonna recommend this vid to buddies of mine

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Thanks for the kind words Lipton, hope it helps rather than hinders your speech! If I was to include anything based on the Guardian diatribe I'd mention how his argument hasn't a scintilla of evidence to support it; quite the contrary given the amount of anger coming from fascistic Trump Supporter's over the 'wokeness' of their once beloved boyhood comics in current media. I'd mention how he's utterly unqualified to an opinion even, based on self avowed utter ignorance of the material he's condemning. And I might mention how his most recent Film project 'The Show' featured an adult version of the beloved British Boys Comic's character 'Dennis The Menace' who Moore now has killing people with his catapult; though without any reference to or acknowledgement of his original creator's or owners. Feel free to use whatever can help you with or without attibution! (whatever will get you the best marks)

[@gelidsoul]

A very interesting video, thanks for making this. I met Steve Bissette years ago in a comics class and he was very good to me and all his students. He seemed to talk highly of Moore at the time, but maybe he hadn't gone public with his experiences then. For as much as Alan openly jokes about being egotistical I suppose I don't find this information all too surprising.

[@kairamh]

isn't there info about the loeg characters' creators on the books? on the text part at the back at least? who doesn't know the creators of mina, alan, hyde, nemo, invisible man? of dorian? are there any readers who think moore created those?

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Nope

[@greenberger]

Exactly- this video is full of specious arguments like this one. To equate what Marvel and DC have systemically done to creators for decades with Alan Moore taking characters that are well known to the entire Western World and riffing off them is laughable and idiotic. I understand the bitterness from his peers, but that's a personal issue between them. Trying to codify their bitterness into some kind of universal case against Moore as an exploiter beyond the likes of corporate America is something else entirely. The guy isn't even involved in comics anymore- he broke up with comics ages ago. Let it go.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

@@greenberger "Trying"? Read the room.

[@ryanmoore6259]

@@greenberger When he made lost girls the people who owned peter pan's copyright made QUITE clear they didn't approve. He still tried to swindle them out of it by saying "oh you don't REALLY own it so I can just disregard you." He only relented because he would have gotten his ass kicked in court. He also allowed Rob Liefeld to use his name to lure people over to his failing company (meaning that if anything Wildstorm screwing him over could be karmic justice." And it's hypocritical because he always throws a fit when his characters are used in any way.....while having no problem with using others

[@dionysiaex5538]

If working with Alan Moore is so terrible then why don't all these bitter and twisted old co-creators go and make their own comics which outshine his? Perhaps because Moore was the genius and they weren't? I've lost count of the people I would never have heard of but for the fact they have a connection to Alan Moore.

[@ElvingsMusings]

Well obviously the glowing accounts of collaborating with Moore by many other artists simply doesn't accommodate this hatchetjob.

[@octagonseventynine1253]

That has nothing to do with his ethics or seeming lack there of.

[@dionysiaex5538]

@@octagonseventynine1253 Moore has no such "lack of ethics". In fact, its because he has any ethics at all beyond wanting to screw every last cent out of everything that all these losers complain about him. You might note that its only Moore here who takes a principled stand against capitalist exploiters. The rest just wish they could be one. I say again: if these other guys had created the great things they did with Moore BY THEMSELVES hen they wouldn't have to worry about Moore at all. But they didn't because they needed Moore.

[@ryanmoore6259]

@@ElvingsMusings A lot of them said he was talented....but that they would never work with him again. Alan Moore's a hypocritical piece of garbage and none of the complaints from his drooling idiot fanboys will change that.

[@paulbrown6464]

Nobody is disputing the writing, this is about the way he has treated his collaborators

[@darkhero-3097]

This was a highly interesting and informative video that I’m glad I watched. Some of it is stuff that I’ve been aware of before, but this video really brings to light what these actually mean, and really challenges my views of the man, and that’s not even bringing up all the malarkey I didn’t know about before, including the parts about Alan Davis, and Don Simpson. It’s very interesting things that I’m glad I could know about. My only suggestion is maybe to piece together an article or document of your research and facts, as that would help give a clear way for anyone else, who may be interested in this side of Moore, to do their own research. I’m wary of sharing this without such a piece, as this video could easily be dismissed as hearsay and disgruntled creators making up their own facts, like Moore does himself. But again, I’m very glad to have seen this video, it’s incredibly eye-opening.

[@chrishlady]

Hmm, that was really over-the-top, but fair enough, relatively speaking. I mean, sure enough, Alan Moore is a cartoon villain, a pirate of sorts, galavanting about, living in the land of do-as-you-please. As a writer, though, I mean, are 'they' EVER beholding to anyone? Moore isn't, not that there's anything wrong with that, if one wants to have a good night's rest. Anyways, the problems with this biased-presentation, although somewhat 'good'-hearted, are voluminous. Really chock full of vitriol, and warped exaggeration. Sure, everybody's pains and losses are profound, and the rich bully wins in the end, sort of, but ... BIG BUT, are there any good takeaways, other than nag and rag? Creative collaborations are fickle, fragile, potentially explosive, and extremely prejudiced. I mean, working hours, days, weeks, YEARS, on projects that can be dismissed with a swat, would make anyone ... 'tempermental'. I guess I didn't mind spending an hour listening on a subject I'm ravenously over-educated enough to consider providing a 50-page Appendix of Fact Checks (which would be nice if I were actually paid for the hours it would take to write), and I don't disaggree at all with Don's and Steve's characterizations. Just business realities and junk journalism ethics, which may be the same thing, would 'couch' some of the 'hard edges'. I'm reminded of the phrase, "not my circus, not my monkeys," and while I absolutely love all of the creative talent, herein presented, it is to 'the published work' that I would raise a toast. It is truly glorious. Thank you. Thanks for sharing.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Personally, there is something irksome about such a conflicted figure representing "creator's rights" in the mass media, when, if anything, he's a counter-example that corporate control and work-for-hire is actually more functional. I've tried to curate a little story I drew of Alan's for the past thirty years and instead of cooperation the author has been an obstacle to keeping the work in print and presented properly. The same goes for 1963. I happen to know something about creator ownership and if Alan Moore is The Guardian's poster child for an exploited comics creator, I'll be a monkey's uncle. I don't detect any vitriol or warped exaggeration in the piece; what is uncomfortable is the contradiction between the self-pitying, grudging image Alan presents to the media and the actual track record. This is a guy who chooses to be miserable in public when in fact there is no material basis for such misery. It's all in his head. And there are at least several collaborators who've paid the price for making the mistake of having created IP with him.

[@chrishlady]

@@donaldsimpson2237 I don't know, Don. Alan has the right to be dissatisfied with his former collaborators and to not cooperate further with them (you, etc.). He really doesn't have to explain himself. No one does. Now, obviously, for your next collaboration, in the Contract (there obviously needs to be one), stipulate articles of 'good faith' for future profitability. Get it in writing Rick can bitch at you, for going to that convention, rather than meeting a deadline. Maybe the 1963 crew chased the fast buck without thinking through the implications. No way I'd ever work with Jim or Todd in a million years. Alan's passive-aggression is obvious to anybody with eyeballs. That said Moore wasn't at all pleased with Jim Lee selling Wildstorm to DC, which was slanted, vitriollically, in the telling. No one in this story is an angel. No one in comics should EVER expect fairness. Get it in writing.

[@chrishlady]

In addition, I believe Moore realized completing the 1963 Annual would only hurt Image, via satire, and not DC and Marvel, like he intended. As an anarchist, it still made no sense to hurt the hand that feeds you, while being unable to get at Shooter and the DC decision makers. Moore had spent enough time on the 'inside' of a corrupt system, and just wanted to tell his stories his way. The 1963 gang was collateral damage, over time, and a reminder of an indulgent mistake.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@chrishlady This makes as much sense as what actually happened. You're right, Chris. I totally agree. Every creator should have the right to walk out on a project, break their promise to their fans after pocketing their dough for the first two thirds of the project, and script more lucrative Todd McFarland and Jim Lee comics instead. That's what creative control is all about. So much better than that corrupt system of work-for-hire, in which all those evil corporations seem concerned about is, like, completing and continuing stuff and keeping stuff in print and actually providing content so that readers have something to read. This way, fans get to use their imaginations and can dream up their own endings for 1963 themselves, and wax romantic whilst clipping the occasional self-pitying, mythologizing account of tortured genius from the print edition of The Guardian. As William Hurt's character in The Big Chill says about not turning in his doctoral dissertation, "I'm not hung up on this completion thing."

[@rasheedknox2140]

Dang ... someone go get mr a ...😢

[@kairamh]

i believe work for hire and creator owned work function very differently to be compared on equal terms based on payment (isn't it revenue and not royalties for owned things? please illuminate me) alone.

[@greenberger]

While it would certainly make Moore a much more compassionate person if he allowed his co-creators to make some money off their collaborations with Moore, much of what Crotty says in here is pure editorializing based on a very skewed interpretation of the facts. Equating his creative usage of public domain characters who have permeated Western Culture to the point that they are in all of our DNA to the greedy milking of Watchmen et al by DC Comics in the form of prequels, spinoffs and merch is absolutely laughable- one is an artist following a creative muse, the other is a corporate entity looking to make as much money as they can by riding the coattails of an artist's talent. Moore doesn't need to credit Jules Verne for us to know who Captain Nemo is or where he came from- if anything, he has made new generations of readers curious to go back and explore the source material. The value in those comic books does not lie on what the original creators did, but on what Moore has done with the characters- a marked difference from what DC and Marvel do when they keep milking characters that should have been put to pasture long ago. Again, this is not to defend Moore in terms of his relationship to his peers- those are personal issues we have nothing to do with and can only sit on the sidelines watching the "he said / she said" debate continue. I certainly don't consider Moore to be a warm or caring human being, nor do I agree with how he handled 1963, for example. But in terms of the industry, Moore has every right to walk away from it and criticize it for being exactly what it is- a machine of capitalist thought that sees everything in terms of dollars and cents. Yes, it's true that Moore speaks from a privileged position of having all the money he could ever want (and more,) and that most of us are not so lucky. But that doesn't really factor into the veracity of his arguments. Even if his grasp of personal history and events is completely nutso and certifiably inaccurate, his grasp on the greedy underbelly of the industry is not. The author would do better if he kept the issues separate- Moore the non-humanitarian over here, Moore's criticisms of the machine over there.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Moore's critique of comics was available to everyone in the 1970s, well before Moore jumped into American comics. That's why independent, creator-owned comics boomed in the 1980s. Creator ownership is a concept Moore has never grasped except in the most negative terms -- of being a refusnik. But that's just me editorializing, because I happened to have worked with him.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Actually, Philip Jose Farmer was the author who first added value to Captain Nemo, et al, by putting them in the same universe. I find the notion that interpretations of the Watchmen are a crime just because Alan Moore declares it so -- even when Dave Gibbons does it -- laughable. Alan was just "is an artist following a creative muse." How romantic, except he now declares the entire comics industry a whore house. Why did something so cheap and tawdry inspire him in the first place? And if he did manage to make great art from it, that inspired others, why must their work be denigrated out of hand? This is pure hagiography from the Alan Moore Amen Corner.

[@greenberger]

​@@donaldsimpson2237 Not really. It's pretty disingenuous to pretend that the greedy, uninspired and cynical decisions driving the corporate suits to put out more "product" are anywhere near the same universe as a truly inspired creative idea. No one is saying Moore has the monopoly on what is good or inspired- but let's be honest. He's not saying anything plenty of other creative types haven't said a hundred times, from Dave Sim's entire self-publishing crusade to Gary Groth in TCJ to pretty much anyone who wants to see comics as an art form rather than just another pulp media. Crumb, Clowes, Spiegelman, Brown... do we really think their opinion of DC and Marvel's output is any higher? Garbage is garbage, regardless of all the other personal beefs one may have with the guy. To each his own, of course, and if someone wants to indulge in and support all the garbage to come out of the mills, of course, they are more than welcome to do so. And I'm very sorry that Moore's idiosyncratic ways have driven him to prevent decent, hardworking artists from earning some money they could use- but again, these are two separate issues. Shitty Watchmen spinoffs aren't a crime, and they don't suck because Moore says so- they suck because they're the cynical result of corporate greed. No different than Hollywood blockbusters and their sequels, no different than all the autotuned pop music pumped into Spotify playlists by algorithms doing their masters' bidding, no different than a billion other things capitalism has led mankind to churn out in the quest for more product. Just because Moore cares more about his lofty ideals than he does about the livelihood of others doesn't mean he's wrong about his assessment of the industry- it just means he is out of step with the value system most of us believe is important. Given that the guy spends most of his time traveling the astral plane having conversations with pan-dimensional beings, it's not exactly surprising that he feels all of this stuff is beneath him. Most of it is beneath me, and I pretty much stick to 3 dimensions- lord knows what the comics industry must look like to someone who is frequently conscious of 12.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Alan left retro 1963 to script Bedrock, Spawn, Wildcats, et al, because he was following his muse!! And no one who worked on the Watchmen could even tell you what a muse was -- they were all motivated by pure greed. In fact, if DC Comics found out that any of the creators on the Watchmen prequels even liked the original Alan Moore comic, they would have been immediately fired! How did DC ever publish such a pure, unadulturated work of art as Watchmen in the first place? They must not have realized he was the Messiah until it was too late. And boy, it sure would be nice if Alan allowed his co-creators to make some money off their collaborations (although let's face it, they're really just riding his talented coattails). Because all they were ever interested in was making money, while all Alan ever was interested in was making art! Maybe if they (we) all prayed to Alan, he would bestow his compassion upon them (us)! But you can't expect an artist who spends all his time among the muses to understand earthly things like keeping a work in print! Only corporations do that, because they are motivated by greed -- please, don't tell DC that Watchmen is a work of art! And when Alan takes a public domain character, he's making "new generations of readers curious to go back and explore the source material." But when DC or Hollywood make more Watchmen content, nobody ever goes back to read Alan's original. (Are you sure about that?! Why did sales of the original Watchmen GN jump tenfold after the movie came out?) They must not realize they're reading a work of art! (That's why it's better that Alan's creator-owned work be out of print--if too much art were in print at once, readers might start to catch on!) And if the Messiah visits a whorehouse, he "has every right to walk away from it and criticize it for being exactly what it is" and declare, "That was a whorehouse!" after the fact, even thought he knew darn well it was a whorehouse before he ever walked into it. And yet he still maintains his incorruptible purity. Amazing! Boy, I wish I had your omniscient understanding to be able to discern when Alan Moore writes a Joker or Superman or Violator vs. Badrock (boy, the muses were working overtime on that one!), it's for all the right reasons, but when others do the same with Watchmen, it's for all the wrong ones. Don't get me wrong -- I believe you; I just would like to understand the critical methodology you employ. Does the Messiah appear to you in a vision and tell you directly? Do little muses just whisper in your ear? Do you just, like, know?! Not that I doubt you. After all, you've read a stack of Alan Moore comicbooks, whereas Alan's collaborators -- well, we just happen to have worked with the guy (you know what they say: Familiarity breeds contempt, and you can't unknow something once you know it). If I wasn't absolutely convinced you were right, I might think your grasp of creator's rights, publishing, art, and creative inspiration were completely nutso, or at least pure editorializing. Sidelines? You're not even in the same ballpark, friend.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@greenberger What is disingenuous is pretending to know everyone's motives while sitting on the sidelines reading a stack of comics. It's a completely muddled, adolescent view of the world. The argument that Alan Moore abandoned 1963, a creator-owned project, because the muses inspired him to script for Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, and Rob Liefeld -- not the big paychecks they were cutting him -- is what's laughable. Alas, if only the world operated in such a caricatural fashion, with "corporate suits" and villains with twirling their handlebar mustaches and gaslights and hocus pocus. And only one man of integrity who's still cashing those royalty checks they send him while feeding gullible fanboys like you a complete line of utter horseshit about art and muses and fairies and pixie dust. What absolute rubbish. Grow up.

[@JoshuaOfGrandRapids]

I’ve been saying things similar to this for ages and I thank you for the trouble of citation.

[@AGoodJoe]

Weird that there are no comments defending Moore here. Almost like they were deleted or something.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

I haven't deleted a single comment Joe. Most folks commenting seem to have actually watched the episode, and it's hard to defend the indefensible. I suspect you'll see the same thing after the revelations in the final episode I'm working on now.

[@AGoodJoe]

@@comicssecrethistory3538 fair enough. I simply assumed a rabid fanbase like his would have been all over this is all. Looking forward. 🤙

[@warlockofwordsreturnsrb4358]

@@AGoodJoe The great majority of his readers haven't -- and won't -- watch this hatchet job. Why would they?

[@ryanmoore6259]

@@warlockofwordsreturnsrb4358 Because it hurts their messiah and shows him to be a hypocritical piece of garbage

[@kairamh]

nice tagging a psicological diagnosis on someone, i hope it's based on some professional conducted sessions. if it's not, you'd better use layman terms like effing, moron, etc

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Which one?

[@kairamh]

in the last 10-5 min

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

@@kairamh The 'Narscisstic Sociopath'?

[@donaldsimpson2237]

I like to think of oil' Uncle Al as the embarrassing crazy person in the attic. (Is that layman enough?)

[@LadyJaggerX3]

Fun fact, moron actually used to be a psychological term.

[@nigelflood7074]

Great vid

[@UnderdogTactics]

The Alan Moore letter to Grant Morrison about not working on Miracleman makes even more sense now.

[@warlockofwordsreturnsrb4358]

There's anecdotal evidence suggesting that never happened.

[@UnderdogTactics]

@@warlockofwordsreturnsrb4358 Why would Grant Morrison lie about that? He said it plain as day in an interview. He clearly has tremendous respect for Moore's writing chops. Plus, it's seems quite consistent with Alan Moore's behavior. He's a bit of a curmudgeon.

[@warlockofwordsreturnsrb4358]

@@UnderdogTactics the same reason anyone makes shit up - for attention, he may have misremembered, or something else.

[@llengsuch3426]

In the Talking With Gods film - available to view on KZbin - Dez Skinn corroborates Grant Morrison's claim that Alan Moore "spiked" Morrison's Kid-Marvelman script, which Skinn had bought. BTW, "anecdotal evidence" for the non-existence of an event? That is illogical, Captain. i.e. proof can only pertain to that which exists, but cannot be applied to that which does not exist.

[@warlockofwordsreturnsrb4358]

Singularly unfair, hostile and bafflingly ungenerous to a great writer.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

He is a great writer which is why it would be desirable to keep his work in print; the biggest obstacle to that, vis-a-vis his creator-owned work, is the author himself. I can only assume you never worked with him; in any case, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Your sycophantic fanboy opinion therefore carries no weight.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Try refuting one fact or argument. I guess it's not fair because you can't.

[@illdaveytoob]

Why do some fans need great writers to also be decent people? Loving his stories doesn't erase the fact that he treated his collaborators horribly. Other than Kevin O'Neill and Eddie Campbell, how many went back for seconds?

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@illdaveytoob I'd settle for a writer who was just a garden-variety miserable, dyspeptic heel, like myself. I also wish I could write.

[@sm1thsisdead]

@@illdaveytoob Jaycen Burrows? (Not arguing your larger point, just trying to think of other examples)

[@kenmetroent]

This is So Wrong & Twisted; your gleeful Oratory is like a Bad Lawyer...

[@donaldsimpson2237]

The defense rests.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

That's your one-sentence rebuttal? Not going to persuade the jury.

[@ElvingsMusings]

Your supercilious tone about "sycophants" not holding Moore to count when every single thing you mention and distort is mentioned in Lance Parkin's biography with little addition.

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

Considering Parkin is one of your muses Jack, It's disappointing you've obviously never read or managed to retain any of his book on Moore :(

[@ElvingsMusings]

@@comicssecrethistory3538 I am sorry do we know each other? Where do you get off calling Parkin one of my "muses"?

[@comicssecrethistory3538]

@@ElvingsMusings You list him on your "Muses" Blog Jack, my sincerest supercilious sympathy for your memory issues where he and Moore are concerned : elvingsmusings.wordpress.com/home/

[@ElvingsMusings]

​@@comicssecrethistory3538 Okay, so you acknowledge reading my blog, can you not state that clearly rather than pretending any kind of familiarity?

[@ryanmoore6259]

Alan Davis firmly believes Moore deliberately fucked him over. Are you calling him a liar.

[@nopaininpoptom]

This is embarrassingly wrongheaded, accented by a crushingly smug and unlikeable delivery, throughly unpleasant stuff.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

Youch! Wrongheaded! What a stinging indictment.

[@Dacre1000]

​@@donaldsimpson2237 Well, you got the smug covered.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

@@Dacre1000 Another stinging indictment. If these were my fans instead of Alan's, I'd be ashamed.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

And it's Dr. Simpson, btw

[@Dacre1000]

@@donaldsimpson2237 You will always be Donnie to me.

[@donaldsimpson2237]

I began responding to a discussion thread on Facebook concerning this video, but ended up creating yet another long-winded blog post here: Enjoy! 🙂 donaldesimpson.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-secets-of-dumbalmoore-fantastic.html